Leuenberger will be the 2016 Lumumba that everybody convinces themselves they should jump on, that does not deliver.

Leuey ave 102 once in his career, back in 2011. Can't see it happening again.

If he stays on the park, he may ave 75, imo.

Big call and I think its very wrong. Since 2011, when Leuys played more than 5 games in a season he's averaged over 85, with the exception if this year when he was played out of position. He should go 85, but the question is is that good enough to warrant starting with him.

You simply can't rely on Berger to be a consistent player. Even if he did average 85, he's still not a good F6 and definitely not a good R2...

So he goes to Essendon, becomes their #1 man in ruck and shoulders the load of the whole team, gets belted every week and maybe scratches out 15 games @ 85... What does your rookie score to cover him? 60? So effectively, 15 @ 85, 7 @ 60 = 77 average.

- He averages 12 games per season for Christ's sake! - 2 seasons out of 9 above an average of 70- 3 seasons of 9 above 15 games.

I think some people are over looking what Leuy could be used for. I'll be starting him.I don't need him to play every game and ave 100- although if he did, it would be great.He's a number one ruck, priced to ave 57 ppg... what i need from him is to play as many games in a row as possible- HOPEFULLY ave >80 ppg. He scores you some handy points on field, but more importantly he makes enough $ that if his body fails then you can sideways to a keeper.

He represents value. That is all. Sure there is risk, but it's up to you whether or not you accept it- especially given that for most who select him will be using him as cover only.

You simply can't rely on Berger to be a consistent player. Even if he did average 85, he's still not a good F6 and definitely not a good R2...

So he goes to Essendon, becomes their #1 man in ruck and shoulders the load of the whole team, gets belted every week and maybe scratches out 15 games @ 85... What does your rookie score to cover him? 60? So effectively, 15 @ 85, 7 @ 60 = 77 average.

- He averages 12 games per season for Christ's sake! - 2 seasons out of 9 above an average of 70- 3 seasons of 9 above 15 games.

I think some people are over looking what Leuy could be used for. I'll be starting him.I don't need him to play every game and ave 100- although if he did, it would be great.He's a number one ruck, priced to ave 57 ppg... what i need from him is to play as many games in a row as possible- HOPEFULLY ave >80 ppg. He scores you some handy points on field, but more importantly he makes enough $ that if his body fails then you can sideways to a keeper.

He represents value. That is all. Sure there is risk, but it's up to you whether or not you accept it- especially given that for most who select him will be using him as cover only.

I think some people are over looking what Leuy could be used for. I'll be starting him.I don't need him to play every game and ave 100- although if he did, it would be great.He's a number one ruck, priced to ave 57 ppg... what i need from him is to play as many games in a row as possible- HOPEFULLY ave >80 ppg. He scores you some handy points on field, but more importantly he makes enough $ that if his body fails then you can sideways to a keeper.

He represents value. That is all. Sure there is risk, but it's up to you whether or not you accept it- especially given that for most who select him will be using him as cover only.

Most people said the same thing about Bellchambers last year. As an F4/F5 cover yes he is worth considering.

As an M1, M2 not for me - too much risk when there are many decent mid price and bargain based rookies in the other lines.

What's everyone's thoughts on Sinclair and Tippett? I've been doing a bit of research and am trying to figure if either of them are worth it.

So we all know Tippett went bang after the byes. He pretty much increased all his stats, big increases in possessions and hit outs and smaller increases in marks, tackles and goals.

This looks promising for 2016 right? Not so promising when I dug a little deeper

Tippett's meteoric rise after the byes conveniently coincided with drastic drops in the output of Pyke and Buddy.

Pre Bye Post ByeTippett 75.5 108.2Franklin 98.3 66.0Pyke 67.2 54.2

So I'm thinking with a fit Buddy and the inclusion of Sinclair in the team, Tippett is probably going to struggle to get a 90 average.

Now Sinclair, he averaged a respectable 76 last year considering his numbers were fairly crappy

Disp - 13 pgHO - 19 pgGoals - 13 totalTOG - 77.6%

Wlll Sinclair improve enough to average 90+ and be a solid F6/Ruck cover?

I would say its a strong possibility,he will be rucking to a midfield that on paper is stronger than West Coasts. He should increase his HO per game by 10-15 so even with a crappy HOTA% he should get 10-15 more points from HOTA alone.

With the no subs and the lowering of the rotation cap he will increase his TOG% which hopefully means more forward time and more goals as he is a more than handy full forward (knows how to lead and take contested marks)

The biggest question is how much will he ruck? I think more than Tippett as Tippett is a better forward

TL:DR Summary

So if you want ruck cover in your forward line and for good reason don't trust Leuys body, I would lean towards Sinclair at this stage, he is 75k cheaper and has lots of up side.

I don't think it's fair to say that Tippett is only good when both Pyke and Buddy were out, Science class tells me that is not a fair test.My real test will be watching NAB when only Pyke is gone and Buddy still remains, that might give some definitive answers.But then there is Sinclair to throw into the mix now

Okay, say Currie and another cheap ruckman (Grimley/Howard etc) are named round 1. With Goldy R1 would it be stupid to even consider starting Currie at R2 with.. Very risky but would save some valuable coin (if it paid off). Keen to hear people's thoughts

Okay, say Currie and another cheap ruckman (Grimley/Howard etc) are named round 1. With Goldy R1 would it be stupid to even consider starting Currie at R2 with.. Very risky but would save some valuable coin (if it paid off). Keen to hear people's thoughts

You run the risk of Currie getting dropped next round, which would be a disaster really.Plus, Howard is FWD only?

Okay, say Currie and another cheap ruckman (Grimley/Howard etc) are named round 1. With Goldy R1 would it be stupid to even consider starting Currie at R2 with.. Very risky but would save some valuable coin (if it paid off). Keen to hear people's thoughts

I'd probably just chuck one at R3 and not loophole early on...Currie and Grimley could both make some cash, although if Nicholls goes down before round 1, I guess Currie could be worth an R2 spot even, as he can score well